Feedback for June 2000

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am writng
a paper for a college biology class on pseudogenes and I
found Dr.Edward Max's essays really helpful and
interesting. Thanks a lot.

Feedback Letter

From:

Jim Kerr

Comment:

"It is a
FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6
billion years old." Did it ever dawn on you folks that God
created an aged world?

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Yes, it
occurred to a number of thinkers. This is called the
Omphalos Hypothesis, named after a book by Phillip Gosse
which argued just this line in the late nineteenth century.
Omphalos means navel, and he argued that God created Adam
and Eve with navels even though they had not developed in a
womb.

The objections are: why would God deceive us in this
way? What does he get out of it? How would we know this
scientifically? Shouldn't science just continue to use the
evidence to draw the conclusions the evidence supports? Why
accept (scientifically) that the evidence sure points to a
world that is 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that is
close to 14.5 billion years old, only God wants us to think
it is very much younger than that?

Scientists have to work only on the basis of the
evidence. As Christians, Muslims or whatever they can
reconcile their science with their scriptures any way they
like, but that is not a matter for science, and it should
not affect the way science proceeds in any way. Otherwise
you are mixing up religious belief and scientific knowledge
and both will suffer for it.

Feedback Letter

From:

madeline beaumont

Comment:

I would like
to add some insight on the topic of evolution vs. creation.
The origin of life. First of all, this debate is NOT
science (evolution) vs. theology (creation) as many would
have us believe. Second, lets talk science (real science)
Thermodynamics=degeneration. Evolution=simple to complex.
Evolution defies one of the fundamental laws of the
universe. Biogenesis=Life produces life. Evolution=Life
came from non-life. Let's just say that no one was around
to see what happened when life began so it takes faith to
believe one or the other. The fact that it takes faith to
believe in evolution, suggests that it is not all science.
One more question for you to think about. How is it that
scientists can create a cell but cannot give it life? With
all the intelligence it would take to create this cell in
the first place and we can't give it life, how can anyone
think it could have happened with no intelligence involved
to begin with.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Of your four
"equations," three are not correct:

Thermodynamics not does equal "degeneration."
Thermodynamics is the study of heat flows ("thermo" = heat
+ "dynamics" = change). A common creationist misconception
is that the laws of thermodynamics (in some vaguely defined
way) prevent the spontaneous generation of order. But they
most certainly do not. Critiques of evolution based on
thermodynamics are simply wrong, and show that the person
making the critique understands neither evolution nor
thermodynamics. See the Thermodynamics FAQs.

Evolution does not equal "simple to complex." A common
misconception is that evolution makes "simple" creatures
into "complex" ones. Besides the extreme difficulty of
rigorously defining "simple" and "complex," this argument
is false because evolution requires no such thing.
Evolution is change — any change — in
the genetic makeup of a population of organisms. See the Introduction to
Evolutionary Biology FAQ under the heading "Common
Misconceptions about Evolution."

Evolution does not equal "life came from non-life." The
origins of life on Earth are the study of abiogenesis. Although
this process may have involved selection effects among the
chemical precursors to life, evolutionary biology is
primarily concerned with the diversity of life on
Earth, that is, what happened after the first living
organisms appeared.

And one more point: So what if researchers cannot (yet)
create a living cell? We can't create volcanoes either, but
that doesn't mean we can't study them and understand the
processes by which they form.

Feedback Letter

From:

Joe Hern

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Much as it
is hard for an evolutionist to debunk creationism with one
example, the same is true for Creationism about evolution.
Recently, I have been perusing the site of the Creation Research,
Science Education Foundation, and even as a non
creationist, I find it hard to refute their 'scientific'
findings, apparently borne from extensive scientific
research, any more than I can refute evolutionary findings.
What gives? Unlike fake-doctors such as Kent Hovind, these
real doctors show scientific evidence that humans
co-existed with dinosaurs, that the earth shows blatant
signs of a past great flood, 'ancient' oil pockets can be
re-created in laboratories today, and that the grand canyon
can easily be explained with modern day examples of
erosion. I have seen their accompanying videos and they are
not brash, haughty, or arrogant as I have always believed
them to be (i.e., Kent Hovind). They are methodical,
explanatory, and non-evasive about their findings. Contrary
to what I have believed about creationists, they actually
have 'evidence' to back their claims. because I am not a
scientist, I cannot refute them. Can you direct me to a
scientist that can refute their specific findings, so that
I don't sit here confused as to who has the agenda, and who
has the truth?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Most of their other claims (polystrate fossils, the
second law of thermodynamics, the supposed lack of
transitional fossils, etc., etc.) are tired rehashes of
claims made by other creationists and have been thoroughly
discussed on this site. Check the index or use our search facility to find
material on specific claims.

Just because they don't rant like Kent Hovind doesn't
mean that they're any more correct in their scientific
claims.

Feedback Letter

From:

Scott Reese

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I'd like to
tell you that I'm surprised that you didn't post my
feedback on your Bombardier Beetle article....but I'm NOT.
I guess my input just made too much sense, huh? We wouldn't
want your devoted readers reading something that
contradicts and points out the faults in your silly little
hypothesis, right? It saddens me that you people just can't
find it in yourselves to open your minds and to think
outside the box. You claim to be so wise. You silly
people.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

We received over one hundred feedbacks that month. Many
of the people responding to feedback on the Archive's
behalf are academics, who have end-of-year activities such
as finals to grade and so on. Though I am not an academic,
I was out of town for a good portion of that month.

The responses come from volunteers, who answer
questions that look interesting to them. If yours didn't
get answered, it might just be that it didn't capture
anyone's attention in particular.

Now that I review it, your feedback shows that you
didn't carefully read the article in question. You say,
among other things, "Did these beetles go around blowing
themselves up until they perfected it?" As specifically
addressed in the
article, and as addressed in
several prior feedbacks, the chemicals that the
bombardier beetle uses for defense do not explode.

Finally, we make no claim to wisdom. In fact, we direct
our visitors to consider our extensive list of other
links and, most importantly, to check our articles
against the primary scientific literature referenced in
those articles. See the Archive's welcome message
for more details.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

I accept the
theory that humans and dinasours did not live at the same
time. However, I recently had a conversation with someone
who said, "Well, you know that they found a human footprint
next to a dinasour fossil". Have you ever heard of this? I
can't seem to find any documentation on this and wanted to
make sure that I had my facts straight before challenging
him with his source.

Thanks. -Tony Reina

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

He's
probably referring to the claims of some creationists that
"giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the
limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas.
This claim has been thoroughly debunked, and even many
creationists now recognize it as bogus. See the Paluxy FAQs for more
details.

Feedback Letter

From:

paul

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

"I am a Christian who finds the 6-day creation model to
be more consistent with what I believe is a correct
interpretation of the Bible."

I think you missed your opportunity to point out to
Jenette that, while she is probably correct that the 6-day
creation model is a correct interpretation of the bible, it
is inconsistent with what we observe in nature. Because
science is empirically based, it therefore rejects the
6-day creation model in favor of an explanation that is
supported by physical evidence.

I always like to point out that creationism was at one
time the standard model for origins, but was abandoned
because it did not account for what was observed in nature.
That's what science is all about.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Since I
wrote the response to Jenette, I'll answer this question as
well.

Actually, I personally disagree that the 6-day creation
model is a "correct" interpretation of Genesis. As our Various Interpretations
of Genesis FAQ describes, there are many ways by which
Christians reconcile Genesis with the findings of modern
science. As for myself, I believe that proper Biblical
exegesis must take into account the knowledge, lifestyle,
and worldview of Biblical authors and the people at the
time. This is the complaint that many Christians have
against young-earth creationism: they feel it's bad
theology, not just bad science.

But this is my personal view alone. Science and this
archive take no position as to matters of Biblical
interpretation. What they can do is determine that a
particular Biblical interpretation, young-earth
creationism, contradicts the physical evidence we see in
nature. One is left with two alternatives: either God has
faked the evidence, or the interpretation is incorrect.
Creationists, of course, attempt to insert a third
possibility -- science is incorrect -- but they have been
woefully unsuccessful in their attempts.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

How did
woodpeckers and giraffes evolve?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

You people
are doing a marvelous job! For information, intellectual
stimulation, and a good old cerebral recharge, I couldn't
recommend this site more highly. Both I and my family have
been impressed by the grace and patience that attend all
your responses to questions, even, and especially, the
hebetudinous ones. I have encouraged my children to visit
your site not only as a great source of information about
evolution, but also as an example of how discussion on
sensitive themes and ideas should be conducted. Enormously
commendable. Be encouraged. You are a "candle in the
dark".

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Thank you so
much for two reasons:

1. It's nice to get such warm feedback - we really do
try to be even handed and sensitive to others' beliefs,
without compromising the science, and

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I love
reading through these mail archives, mainly for the
humorous responses from creationist. Most go along the
lines of:

"Okay, smarty, is evolution is so true what about X? X
COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISPROVES EVOLUTION! I can't believe
you never thought of X! What idiot wouldn't remember X? Any
moron can see that X says evolution can't be true! Wow, you
really are dumb."

Followed by the reply:

"Please see our article "Why X does not disprove
Evolution" which has been here since 1594 and is surrounded
by bright neon signs and really big spotlights".

(X, of course, stands for just about any creationist
arguement, from the "Its just a theory" to the second
law).

Now, onto part zwei of my letter. I hear complaints that
this site is too one sided. But tell me this, how COULD
this site be unbiased? Sadly, there is no evidence of
creation, it isn't even a theory(random guess is more
accurate), and likewise there is no valid evidence against
evolution. This is the way the evidence is. If you DID give
the creationist POV, you would simply be giving arguements
already refuted in this archive.

This is like complaining that the Earth Science
curriculum doesn't give ample time to geocentrism, even
though heliocentrism is "just a theory".

Finally, thank you for making this site. Its been very
helpful!

Feedback Letter

Comment:

If you say
you have so much proof why are there no pictures of the
fossils on your web page? I don't mean an artist's
illustrations but photographs of the actual fossils. The
creationists have been able to prove that Lucy is a fraud
and continue to make new discoveries often; why don't you?
All I ever hear is the same OLD things with no
evidence.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Two words:
Copyrights and money.

Realize first that this archive is a strictly volunteer
effort. We do this out of the goodness of our hearts and
pocketbooks; the archive receives no other source of
funding as far as I'm aware.

We would absolutely love to include more photographs on
this site. The reason that we don't have more (besides the
hominind
illustrations and scattered pictures elsewhere) is that
it is difficult for us to get royalty-free pictures that we
can place on the site. We would have to negotiate with the
copyright holders for that access.

That said, we would certainly appreciate any suggestions
or contributions of useful photographs and illustrations to
the archive.

One final point: "Lucy" (more properly
Australopithecus afarensis) has not been proven to
be a fraud. See the Lucy's
Knee Joint FAQ for information on one bogus creationist
claim regarding Lucy.

Feedback Letter

From:

Lisa

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I'm probably
asking the wrong person, but... I can't access the
talk.origins newsgroup. Is the newsgroup still there? Or am
I doing something wrong? Could you point me in the right
direction? Thanks in advance.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

It's
virtually impossible for me to say what might be the
problem, given that I don't know what computer system you
are using, etc. But there are generally three things that
might be preventing you from accessing the Usenet newsgroup
talk.origins:

Your Internet service provider (ISP) does not give you
access to a Usenet feed. If that's the case, you'll have to
change ISPs. Or you can access Usenet over the Web at deja.com [now Google
Groups] or reference.com [now defunct].

You do not have Usenet newsreading software installed
on your computer. Both Netscape Communicator and Microsoft
Internet Explorer include a Usenet newsreader, but it might
not have been installed on your system. There are also
other newsreading programs available, including Forté
Free Agent for Windows and Yet Another
NewsWatcher for the Macintosh.

You have newsreading software, but it is not configured
properly for your ISP. I can't help you there; you'll have
to contact your ISP for instructions.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have been
asked by a creationist on "How did the first cell eat?".
Can you suggest some possibilities please? Thank you, great
site btw.

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The first
cell did not arise out of nothing. Cells are very complex
structures, and the first cells were probably preceded by
less complex systems that no longer exist. They ate each
other, and also naturally occurring chemicals that used to
be thought to be "biochemicals" but which we now know are
formed in various ways, from volcanism to reactions in
space.

Even at the very beginning of the chemical evolution
that led to biological evolution, the processes began on
existing chemicals, and then began to metabolise each other
as well as them.

Feedback Letter

From:

Christopher Chupik

Comment:

Hello.

A creationist I've been debating claims that micro- and
macroevolution aren't actually related, and that there is
no macroevolution. He goes on to claim that the connection
between micro- and macroevolution is quote: "a view
characteristic of biologists who have not seriously
grappled with the fossil record." He claims that
paleontologists have grappled with the fossil record and
have a far less Darwinian view of evolution. He cites
Punctuated Equilibrium in support of this idea.

Comments?

BTW, great site! It's one of my bookmarks and I visit it
regularily. Keep up the excellant work!

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

There is a
tension between the two in paleontological literature. Many
do think that the processes that result in patterns within
species (due to natural selection and drift, both
population genetics mechanisms) are different from the
processes that cause patterns in above-species taxa.

Some of these macroevolutionary taxa are thought to be,
by their proponents, such things as developmental
constraints, species selection or sorting, or "laws of
form".

The matter is not as clearly defined as this suggests.
And it is neither Darwinian nor non-Darwinian. Some
biologists have gone so far as to claim that their
macroevolutionary ideas are non-Darwinian, but in nearly
every case this just means non-neo-Darwinian, or that
evolution is not always selectionist or acting on
genes.

There are no proofs either way. Selection and drift -
the two staples of population genetics evolution - have
been shown mathematically to make the evolution of species
possible. Moreover, gradual selective processes can result
in dynamics very like Punctuated Equilibrium Theory
predicts (or claims - PE is not so much a mathematical
model as a generalisation from the paleontological
evidence).

However, speciation is generally thought to be due to
geographical isolation rather than by selection. So in one
sense, speciation and thus all macroevolution, is not due
to the classic mechanisms of neo-Darwinism.

Your creationist friend is likely to have misunderstood
this debate. PE-theorists like Eldredge do not say that
evolution has not occurred, or that selection is not the
mechanism of adaptation. All they are saying is that the
lineages of species evolving from species happens at
variable rates ranging from geologically quickly to almost
not at all. This is a long-held Darwinian view - indeed, it
is mentioned several times in the Origin of Species.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hi guys, I'm
not sorry to say that I don't believe in Evolution and am
aware that there is nothing I can say to change your minds.
This whole issue makes me feel so sad and I wish we all
knew the truth and could agree. Just as a comment, I
dislike the way you tend to flatly deny any evidence for
the comments offered by those writing to you. You don't
provide any evidence for your statements and we are left to
guess why you, as a scientist, would make such strong
statements without any form of backup. I feel for you
deeply for the day you wil experience extreme embarassment
and regret when you realise that you have been trying to
prove a lie. Please realise I am not trying to criticise or
argue, but am hoping you may stop and think about God. One
day I hope you will know that to know HIM is greater than
any scientific evidence. Enjoy your work and
congratulations on an interesting website.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Hello,
Rebecca. Thanks for your feedback.

I'm not sorry to say that I don't believe in Evolution,
either. That is to say, I do not believe in
evolution the way one might believe in God or angels or
everlasting life. Evolution isn't something that one
believes or disbelieves; it is something that one
accepts given the overwhelming scientific evidence
— and it is overwhelming — supporting it.

The point I am trying to make, and which is made in
various places throughout this archive, is that while some
people try to contrast God and evolution, they aren't
really mutually exclusive. Accepting evolution doesn't mean
that one must necessarily fail to believe in God, or that
one cannot be a Christian. See the God and Evolution FAQ.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

You said in
the FAQ section that the Earth is proven to be very old
because of many different dating methods. Fine, you want to
believe that, then I can't change your mind, but I would
just like to point out that radioactive decay is very
unreliable for several reasons. First, you are saying that
it is always constant, and that there is no reason to
believe that it wouldn't be. But what about experiments
done by evolutionists that changed radioactive decay rates
by simply changing the temperature and pressure on the
organism. Also, there have been experiments done by
evolutionists that used several methods of radioactive
decay to date an object from less that 100 years ago, and
results from the different types of radioactive decay are
from anywhere from 2 million years old to billions of years
old, doesn't that say something about the relavancy of
them?? If you can come up with one, please send me an
explanation to this.

Your first
claim is addressed in the Constancy of
Decay section of the Age of the Earth FAQ. There's more
to the argument than (as you suggest) the mere belief that
"there's no reason for radioactive decay rates to vary."
There are solid theoretical reasons -- based on what is
known about the mechanism of the decay process -- for
variations to be limited to such a small range that they
can be treated as constant. Further, your claim -- that
"experiments" have shown changes to relevant decay rates --
isn't true. The decay rates relevant to geological dating
have never been measured to vary, under any
circumstance including extremes of temperature, pressure,
and magnetic field... which is just what theory predicts.

As for your final challenge, it's hard to answer it...
since you didn't supply a reference and didn't give enough
detail for me to be sure of the exact case that you're
referring to. If I were forced to guess, I'd guess that you
refer to creationist claims on the Hualalei lava flows. If
so, Don Lindsay has refuted
that claim.

Feedback Letter

From:

Bek Leys

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I read in
the "Creation" magazine a quotable quote: the current state
of knowledge can be summarized thus, "in the beginning was
nothing, which exploded". I am 14 and even i know that the
idea of evolution is ridiclulous. I have known this since i
was 2! Why can't people accept that there is a God that
created us and the whole universe? I think it is just that
people are too proud to think that there is Someone that is
"much better" than them.

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Many people who accept a Creator God also accept the
evidence of evolution as how God created. Evolutionary
biology does not require giving up faith in God, nor does
it require an excess of pride.

Please have a look at the God and Evolution FAQ. It
summarizes how evolutionary biology is compatible with
faith.

Also, it is worth having a look at what evolutionary
biology really is before dismissing it. There are many FAQ
entries here that help give an accessible introduction to a
variety of topics in evolutionary biology.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

Tony Jones

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I wondered
what your views were on the wood in the Hawkesbury
sandstone story reported on the AiG website?

Feedback Letter

Comment:

Who would be
foolish enough to get mad at either arguements. Both sides
require a leap of faith!

Has anyone calculated the population growth mathematics
for a human population that is supposed to be as old as
generally estimated?

Wouldnt it be better to back calulate, based on the
current world population , how long homo-sapiens have been
in existence within +/- a certain time? Certainly this
could help determine the general timeframe (within the
mathematical assumptions and errors) that we have
existed?

steveo

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Let's simplify. If a doctor were to give you a census of
E. coli bacteria in your gut, could you then work out your
birth date from that information? The answer, of course, is
"No."

Trying to find the date of the first appearance of
humans from human population data fails for exactly the
same reasons.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

Ian Peters

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Thank you
for an excellent article on the Archaeopteryx Forgery
Claim. I have been debating this point on a UK forum and
was wondering if anyone can clear up a mystery. I was under
the impression that Hoyle et al had retracted their claims,
at this time I cannot identify a reference to this
retraction. Any help on this matter will be gratefully
received.

Feedback Letter

From:

Alex

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have read
Chap. 6 of "Origin..." and your excellent FAQ, but did not
find an answer to the following question:

A new species develops when the individual offspring, B,
cannot successfully procreate with its ancestors, A, or
other descendants of that ancestor, C. The concurrence in
two Bs of the genetic inability to procreate with As or Cs
because of or simply along with some other genetic mutation
in the Bs that improves their lot seems improbable to the
point of being irrational. Long periods of complete
isolation of Bs from Cs that might explain it also seem
improbable.

Will the genome project shed light on this question?

Responses

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Another relatively common mechanism of speciation in
sexually reproducing species is through change of
karyotype. This mode of speciational change does pretty
much arise through a single individual having some sort of
change in karyotype. (One will find two groups,
"fusionists" who hold that most such speciation events are
due to "Robertsonian translocations" or other means of
fusing chromosomes, and "fissionists" who hold that fission
of chromosomes is more common. The weight of evidence
appears to give the "fusionists" the edge currently.)

OK, let's say some individual has such a change in
karyotype. (In humans, the species from which we have the
most data, such changes appear to be at about 1 in 1000.)
How, then, can such an individual propagate. The answer is,
"With a bit more difficulty than usual." Such changes may
reduce but not eliminate fertility with individuals having
an unmodified chromosome complement. To produce individuals
with a stable karyotype in the new mode just requires a bit
of incest, not necessarily two individuals changing in the
same manner at the same time and location.

Dr. Kurt Benirschke gave an interesting presentation
recently which touched on the pattern of karyotype
differences in swine and peccaries. Such patterns support
the view that karyotype change as described above is an
important mechanism of speciational change in sexually
reproducing organisms.

Wesley

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The problem
with this explanation, and the reason it seems improbable,
is because you have upspokenly assumed that speciation
occurs because of a single mutation in one individual. That
need not be the case.

Speciation — at least, allopatric
speciation — can occur when a population of
organisms is geographically separated from the main
population. In that case, any mutations that propagate
throughout one population do not propagate through the
other. At any particular time, the organisms can reproduce
within a population, so a population's organisms
remain genetically close. (We'll ignore asexual populations
for the moment.) But one population as a whole may
over time collect and propagate enough genetic changes
through it that none of its individuals can any longer
procreate with any individual from the other
population.

Do you see the difference? You don't need two
individuals coincidentally having the same "speciation
mutation" at the exact same time. You only need two
populations that are isolated for a long enough time such
that each builds up enough genetic differences with the
other population.

The other point, that Wesley discusses in more detail,
is that the definition of "species" is not quite as
black-and-white as we may normally think it is. A
particular mutation may reduce an organism's chance of
breeding with other members of the population without
eliminating it entirely. That is, an organism may be able
to breed with some, but not all, members of a
population.

Feedback Letter

From:

Aidan Karley

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I'm an oil
business wellsite geologist, so you'll have a pretty good
guess where I'm coming from. I've just started hearing
about Hovind's ridculous comments on using oil-field
pressures to disprove an earth billions of years old.
Piffle. Two questions: does anyone have a coherent (Ha Ha!)
account of this buffoon's stumbling around in my
profession, so I can do a rebuttal for it; do you know of
any anti-creationist groups in the UK who are needing the
assistance of a professional geologist. The `Links' section
only has the one obviously European site, and that doesn't
really leave the mainland. I'm particularly looking towards
book-sharing agreements to avoid having to pay for some of
these publication in order to destroy them.

I'm kept pretty busy in the "Creationist Containment
Trenches" on Compuserve, but when I go out to the rig I
often get a reasonable amount of free time to work on
*really* taking some of the Creationist arguments to
pieces. Thanks in Advance <G>.

Feedback Letter

From:

Jeremy Chappell

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hi. It's me
again. You wrote:

"The problem with simple elimination is that there are
an infinite number of hypotheses to eliminate..."

I say: where do you come up with "infinite"? Are you
trying to say that unless we know *everything* there is to
know about nature that the process of elimination is
invalid? If you are, I am not sure that I agree. Let's say
that scientists find an anomaly somewhere that defies
natural explanation (i.e. "this event is in direct
contradiction to all known laws of nature."). Three
conclusions could be drawn:

1. The law is invalid. 2. There is a natural
explanation, but we don't know what it is. 3. It is a
supernatural event.

Why is it not valid to hypothesize that, because no
known natural process for this phenomenom exists, it is
therefore (supernaturally) designed? How can science claim
to be objective and in the same breath automatically reject
a possible, maybe even probable, hypothesis? Hypothesizing
ID is not the same thing as declaring something, as you
said, "not possibly natural". It is simply offering an
explanation that is based on what we know right NOW, which
is how science works. Why should we hold back possible
explanations in favor of others simply due to an arbitrary
definition of "science"? Perhaps later on a possible
process will be found that is natural... So be it. Who
cares? That is one of the beauties of science: it is
self-correcting (when practised properly). It seems to me
that there are two extremes to this thing: one is assuming
that everything is natural, and therefore waiting for
natural explanations to rise where they will not, thus
possibly deluding everybody (intentional or not) into a
naturalistic philosophy. This seems to be the practise of
us supposedly "enlightened" folks. The other extreme is to
assume everything you don't understand is therefore
supernatural, thus deluding everybody into a theistic
philosophy. This is similar to the practise of ancient -
and maybe even some modern - civilizations. In the middle
is objectivity. Base your hypotheses on what you know now,
and change them when they're outdated by more accurate
evidence... REGARDLESS of philosophical implications.

Moving right along...

You said:

"If something begins to look to us like it is designed,
then we are obliged to to seek a natural explanation for
it..."

I say: I agree to an extent. I agree that a natural
explanation should be considered, but not that it should be
"weighted" more heavily (i.e. favored). Hypotheses should
not be weighted according to philosophy , but according to
evidence. If one or the other is invalid, then science (if
practised properly - that is, objectively) will eventually
self-correct itself.

On "Bad Design" (again):

You said:

"...if we can envision better...designs, then we are
entitled to say that a design is faulty."

I say: According to who? And on what basis? You defined
"better" (a subjective word) as "more efficient or more
fault tolerant or making better use of natural principles".
I counted three subjective phrases in that definition:
"more efficient", "more fault tolerant", and "better use".
The use of these phrases all hinge on one assumption: the
device's PURPOSE (what it's intended to do). A device's
purpose is, of course, dependent on the designer's
MOTIVATION. I cannot see, therefore, how an agent's motives
"are besides the point". IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO
CONSIDER! And since they (the motives and purpose) are not
available through the use of the scientific method, then
the whole argument, logically, is moot. Comparing and
contrasting (which is what you are doing when you use
phrases such as "better") must be done around a common set
of assumptions. If those assumptions cannot be determined
then is it not illogical to proceed? If there is no premise
to build on, how can a conclusion be reached? Would that
not be a "non sequitor" fallacy? And isn't it kind of
unethical to arbitrarily place your own premise up and
build on that, thus leading to your own conclusion? Also,
you did not address the second assumption of the Bad Design
argument, which is that things have essentially stayed the
same since they were first designed. Since you gave an
example of the spine, let's consider the probability that
they have stayed the same. Considering the recognized fact
of micro-evolution, I find this highly improbable.
Ludicrous even. In fact, probably any biology class you
attend will say this same thing when it talks about
Hardy-Weinberg assumptions, which are (as I understand
them): 1. No mutations: no allelic changes, or that they at
least balance out 2. No gene flow: migration does not occur
3. Random mating: no phenotypes are favored by potential
mates 4. No genetic drift: all phenotypes of a population
pass on their genes 5. No selection: no selective forces
favor one genotype over another

If only one of these assumptions are violated, the
micro-evolution has occured. Therefore, things have
changed.

Thanks for your time.

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

No, the
issue is a bit more interesting than that.

Suppose I come up with a hypothesis that X causes Y. You
can come up with X+A causes Y, X+B causes Y indefinitely.
Logically, there are an infinite number of hypotheses you
can generate in this way. To make it more concrete, suppose
I say that one god causes the universe. It competes not
only with the idea that no god causes the universe, but
that 2 gods, 3 gods, ... do. Eventually, there is an
infinite number of gods invoked. This can be repeated for
any hypothesis quite easily.

So in order to use a process of elimination in Sherlock
Holmes' sense, we have to be able to restrict the number of
viable hypotheses to some manageable number (say,
two or three). Then elimination is useful and
scientific.

5. There is a natural explanation that some
scientists know but others do not

6. It is not, really, an anomaly

The latter is common in science. For example, people
keep "observing" Lamarckian processes in biology which, on
close examination and reflection turn out to be quite
Darwinian. The "anomaly" is due to a failure in the
theoretical equipment of the scientists rather than in the
actual event.

The problem with ID claims is that they are an admission
of failure from the beginning. If you cannot explain it on
current knowledge, abandon all hope of doing it at all, is
the ID message. That would make any science
impossible. You just would not ever find these explanations
because nobody would ever look if ID were the ruling
paradigm.

However, I agree that self-correction is what drives
science. The problem is that you can only correct if
there's a reason to investigate further, and ID blocks that
option for "rational" investigators.

We are obliged to seek natural explanations not because
we weight them higher than supernatural investigations, but
because supernatural explanations are outside the domain of
science altogether, from an epistemological (method and
knowledge) perspective. In the same way, we are not able to
use science to generate new case law. Legal argument is not
a scientific matter. The two fields may interact in some
manner, but that is not the issue.

On bad design, again, the measures for an engineering
perspective are objective. Energy use, stress distribution,
photon capture and so forth are not subjective criteria. Of
course, you are free to say that the purpose of the eye is
to behold the Lord or attract comely women rather than see
objects, and I cannot disprove that, but if it is to
visually assess the environment, it is a less than optimal
design. The argument from creationists is that the eye
is intended (motivated by the desire to have an
organ) to see. It is thus bad design, since photon capture
could be increased by reversing the retina and the blood
flow that feeds it (and how that arrangement helps
one to behold the Lord or whatever is also unclear).

But ask how we can, in purely scientific terms, know the
designer's intentions? If you say that we need revelation
for that, and I would agree it is the only source of such
knowledge, then you agree with me that science cannot
entertain such rarified notions of design. If you say we
can know it empirically, then give a methodology that does
so (the designer's email address will do just fine, if
he/she/it has PGP and a digital signature). Then we can
investigate these matters using science.

What the spine staying the same or not has to do with
the topic is not clear. Post in the talk.origins newsgroup and we
can discuss it. This is not the forum for such extended
discussions.

Feedback Letter

From:

Matthew Pegram

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Your website
is astounding. I quite appreciate your covering a plethora
of views and subjects even going as far as providing
contrary websites. I have a question (which you may cover
somewhere in your enormous site and I have yet to find) but
I will ask anyway in the event that I may get a response.
It has to do with evolution and science. What I have found
so far deals with the "falsifiable" issue. I agree that
Darwinism (macroevolution) is falsifiable. My question is
one of reproducibility. In my fallible mind, science must
be reproducible. If the experiment I do today (I am a
chemist) cannot be repeated tomorrow it is not science and
is of no use to the company. If this is true, then one
cannot therefore "scientifically prove" historic events,
i.e. the origin of the universe. It then becomes an issue
of faith for both major parties, the evolutionists and the
creationists.

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The relevant criterion is not "reproducibility". Rather,
the relevant criterion is "intersubjective experience". If
different observers can agree upon their experience of the
evidence concerning an event or phenomenon, then we have
the basis for making scientific inferences based upon it.
If "reproducibility" were the criterion, then for
every homicide investigation the detectives might have to
commit several similar murders in order to justify their
conclusions. Astronomers working on the phenomena of
supernovas would have to blow up one or more stars in order
to refine their hypotheses, and they would probably start
with the closest one available for convenience sake.
Archaeologists digging up the mummified remains of child
sacrifices in Peru might have to raid the orphanages in
order to confirm their findings. And I shudder to think of
what cosmologists working on the "Big Bang" theory might
need to do...

I'm happy to say that "reproducibility" is not
necessary to scientific or forensic research.
"Intersubjective experience" appears to work just fine. The
evidence left by history speaks clearly to observers, and
what it tells us accords well with mainstream science, and
argues against various and sundry claims made by
anti-evolutionists. The claim that "faith" is necessary for
accepting the findings of evolutionary biology, in any
significant and meaningful sense of the term, is
unjustified.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

Rob Lazar

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

If this website is not about the origin of man, why is
it called Talk.Origins?

Does Talk.Origins hold a view of Scientism? The only
things we can have knowledge about are the things science
investigates. Areas of study such as philosophy and
literature are not areas where knowledge can be gained, but
they are areas of mere opinion.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The Talk.Origins Archive collectively holds no view
beyond that expressed in our welcome message. Some
of those who contribute to this Archive may hold a view of
scientism; but I, for one, personally do not.

Feedback Letter

From:

Lori Baldwin

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I just read
your articles on creationism
and racism. The arguments in both are basically trying
to show "guilt by association." This would be okay
(creationists have used the same type arguments) if the
articles proved a link between actual Biblical doctrine and
the practice of racism but there is no such link. Henry
Morris's speculations on genetic tendencies are just that -
speculations. The Bible does not support them. As for the
bigots listed who support creationism, it is not logical to
try to attack an idea simply by finding a list of immoral
people who claim to support that idea. Using that method,
one could discredit any idea.

The Bible teaches that there is only one race of men:
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to
dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined
their preappointed times and the boundaries of their
dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope
that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is
not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move
and have our being, as also some of your own poets have
said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" (Acts 17:26-28)

Evolutionary theory is fertile ground for racism because
the popular Darwinian theory of separate development of
different "races" of the "human animal" easily lends itself
to the belief that some "races" are more developed than
others.

The Bible teaches the opposite:

"Then Peter [the apostle] opened his mouth and said: 'In
truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every
nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is
accepted by Him.'" (Acts 10:34-35)

"But God has shown me that I should not call any man
common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them."
(Genesis 1:27)

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this
forum.

Lori Baldwin

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

I agree that
there is nothing in the doctrines of Christianity or any
other religion that is widespread today - such as Islam -
that requires a racist view of humanity. But that was not
the claim. The implication of Morris' writings quoted in
the FAQ is that evolution is the butress for racist
thinking, and then he goes on to make a racist argument
from his biblical literalism! At the least, such
inconsistencies deserve to be highlighted.

The actual history of racism - which I here define as
the view that the different races of humanity are different
biological species or of different levels of "perfection" -
goes back a long way. Prior to Darwin, there were two views
(both of which adduced Genesis as "evidence" from time to
time. These were "monogenism" and "polygenism". The monos
argued for a single origin for all humans, while the polys
claimed that only the white race was descended from human
stock.

Darwin of course argued for the monogenist position,
while creationists such as Louis Agassiz argued for the
polygenist position. But not all did - a number of
creationists in the nineteenth century argued for
monogenism, and some evolutionists argued for
polygenism.

The issue is not whether acceptance of the Bible leads
to one or the other view, but whether racist views have
been espoused by creationists, and they have. Evolution
clearly does not lead to racism in itself.

Moreover, what a "popular" theory of Darwinian evolution
leads to is no more evidence against Darwinism than what
"popular" views of Christianity have led to are evidence
against Christian religion. In fact a proper understanding
of evolution leads to the rejection of racism, and many
leading evolutionists were strong opponents of it in the
course of the 20th century. "Evolution" does not teach
racism.

The consensus of science, including such disciplines as
biology, physical anthropology, linguistics and so forth,
all predicated upon the assumption of evolution, is that
the human species has only shallow geographic variation.
Call these races if you like, but the taxonomic sense of
"race" is much deeper than that, and includes reduced gene
flow and ecological adaptation that human "races" do not
have.

It has been known since the end of the 18th century,
with Buffon, that the "racial differences" of humans are
not identical to the races we find commonly referred to -
"African" is more genetically and physiologically diverse
than the rest of the entire world. In effect the human
species has only two races, Sub-Saharan Africans and
everybody else, if it has any at all. This is the result of
biological investigation.

An entertaining and informative account of the history
of race in the nineteenth century and its relationship to
Darwinism is

Alter, Stephen G. Darwinism and the linguistic image:
language, race, and natural theology in the nineteenth
century, New studies in American intellectual and
cultural history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1999.

The very notion of "race" in humans is probably the
result of the way in which humans classify their world
naturally:

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Congratulations: "talk.origins" should be a very useful
site for anyone desiring a calm as well as leisurely
discussion. But I need some quick help. In the process of
preparing a paper for publication (deadline July 1, 2000) I
need a source reference for the description of evolution
used by the Darwin Centennial held at the University of
Chicago in 1959 which states as follows:

"Evolution is definable in general terms as a one-way
irreversible process in time, which during its course
generates novelty, diversity, and higher levels of
organization. It operates in all sectors of the phenomenal
universe but has been most fully described and analyzed in
the biological sector."

While I realize that many biologists today would not
agree with this description (which I found in T.A. Goudge's
The ascent of life: a philosophical study of the theory
of evolution, University of Toronto Press, 1961) I need
a publication and page reference as close as possible to
the original statement as it first appeared.

Richard W. Kropf Johannesburg, Michigan

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Julian Huxley, "The emergence of Darwinism", in
Callender, Charles, and Sol Tax eds. Evolution after
Darwin : the University of Chicago centennial. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960, volume 1 pp1-21.

The quote can be found on page 18. However, I do not
know what is exactly wrong with the statement. It is
perhaps not specific enough for a description of biological
evolution, but it is a common usage of the term, and
certainly various authors think that evolution is not
restricted to biology, eg

Wilkins, John S. "The appearance of Lamarckism in the
evolution of culture." In Darwinism and evolutionary
economics, ed. J Nightingale and J Laurent.
Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar, forthcoming.

Huxley treated what he called "psycho-social evolution"
as a process that was distinct from biological evolution
but occurred along the same lines.

Feedback Letter

From:

Larry Rudd

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

This last
weekend June 22-24, 2000 I attended a presentation of a
testable creation model by Dr. Hugh Ross. Apparently he has
offered it up for scientific scrutiny. Are you familiar
with his latest submittal in this area? If so, what do you
think? Personally my problems with evolution are more
philosophical in nature. Those defects (in the evolutionary
hypothesis) are far more difficult to surmount than the
isolated scientific defenses offered. The combination of
Dr. Ross's model with a philosophical attack on
naturalistic/atheistic origins is quite formidable.

What Larry sees as "quite formidable" I see as "pretty
pathetic".
The summary of Ross's "model" seeks to deploy a variant
of the doctrine of "special creation" with some Cuvier
thrown in for spice. This stuff is over a hundred years
dead, not a "new" model at all. The claimed "predictions"
in no way follow from the premises. All in all, it appears
to be yet another theological creed simply given the label,
but not the content, of science. The only novelty I see
here is rolling it out at a conference with a $59
registration fee. I suppose that having paid for the
conference might give the attendees the mistaken impression
that the information presented there was valuable.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have
greatly enjoyed reading the various articles posted on your
site. I also have a word of advice for all those
creationists that visit your site and then whine about what
they read. That advice would be to grow up (mentally) and
approach this material with an open and mature mind. This
world, this universe for that matter, is amazing and
fascinating, in all of it's aspects, especially since there
is no anthropomorphic, human invented entity creeping
around in the background. Enjoy this universe and learn all
you can about it.

Feedback Letter

From:

mark sargent

Comment:

I keep
hearing that theistic explanations are not admissible in
science because they are not falsifiable, and thus natural
explanations are either preferrable, or are the only
acceptable explanations. However, I think that the
hypothesis that there is a natural explanation for
everything is equally unfalsifiable. One could always
claim, regardless of what evidence for a miracle or the
existence of God is advanced, that there has to be a
natural explanation somewhere. And if one is found, it is
immediately thought to be superior to any theistic
alternative, a priori.

Everyone in the philosophy of science is aware of the
underdetermination of theories by data. Given any set of
data, both theistic and naturalistic explanations could be
offered as explanations of the data. Thus there is no way,
using data, to either rule out the existence of God, or
rule out a naturalistic universe.

My question, in light of this, is why are naturalistic
explanation a priori preferable to theistic
explanations?

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

There are
two kinds of naturalism in play. One is the metaphysical or
ontological kind. It asserts there is nothing that is not
natural (ie, physical). That view is not relevant to
science and science has nothing to say about it. It's a
philosophical position.

The other kind is more relevant. Science is a human
enterprise of getting to know and understand the world.
Therefore it relies upon evidence as information about the
world. It must be epistemologically naturalistic
(epistemology is the standard term for the study of how we
know things about the world).

Consequently, so far as science is concerned, there are
two modes of knowledge: ignorance and successful
explanation on the basis of evidence. If an evidentiary
explanation comes along, of course it is going to be
preferred.

Of course, science may be a futile exercise. We may all
be in the thrall of an Evil Demon who deceives us, or
Brains in a Vat. But so long as we seek to know the world
in which we live through evidence, we must prefer
epistemologically natural explanations.

Of course there are an indefinite number of theories we
can propose given any set of data. But if that is the game
you are playing, then you are not playing "knowing the
world", you are playing something like "reinforcing my
worldview". The data certainly excludes some
hypotheses, even if only on the basis of background
theories.

Finally, what exactly is a "theistic explanation" in the
context of knowing the world? I can understand that the
actions of God may have theological import, moral import,
or inspire hope for future or present redemption and
salvation. But how does God's existence explain, for
example, the mutation rates of organisms in toxic
environments? Only biological investigation does that.

Feedback Letter

From:

joff

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Your
responses are very well written. To argue this subject is
really depressing for me. It brings into question the
intellectual integrity of my fellow humans. I'm glad you
still have the energy.

You seem to avoid the term "natural selection" If so,
why? Don't you think it's important to distinguish between
evolution and natural selection?

Do you add typos to creationist comments? Or do they
just have a higher proportion of poor spellers?

Bored? Critique my opinions at
http://homestead.juno.com/joffreyc

Good luck getting the rock up the mountain, Joff
Roepcke

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Our having
the energy is probably a clear violation of the second law
of thermodynamics <joke>.

I do not think we avoid the term natural selection. A
search of the archive revealed 298 hits. However, even
creationists do not deny that selection occurs - they
mainly attack evolution by saying that it cannot "add
information" or form a new function, or whatever, so the
argument tends to shift in that direction. In the first
sentence of the classic text that began the marriage of
Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution, The Genetic
Theory of Natural Selection (1929), RA Fisher stated
clearly "Natural selection is not Evolution." It tends to
be taken for granted that this is so.

And creationist typos are never added, although I,
personally, remove any obvious typing errors. I leave in
the ones that are the result of ignorance. Perhaps others
do the same

Feedback Letter

From:

Jeffrey Dreblow

Comment:

I am writing
in response to your 'the age of the earth' article. You
never showed any CALCULATIONS* for the 'Moon Dust Flux'
article; and in fact the only REAL debunking of the shallow
moon dust theory began with: "It thus APPEARS...". I
realize it might be taken out of context which you do with
ALL THE CREATIONIST ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE! Furthermore,
do you even have any young-earth creationists working on
this website? *Go to www.creationscience.com
for ACTUAL CALCULATIONS!

Response

From:

Tim Thompson

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

I have a
better idea; read my article "Meteorite Dust and the Age of
the Earth", and instead of settling for wimpy
calculations (which can use any made up number you like),
you can witness the full glory of actual
observations, and find out the real truth about the
"moondust argument", an argument so boring that even the
arch creationists themselves have
rejected it! How's that for a compound sentence?